Understanding BIG BANG , from the law of physics of today, is not achievable.

The laws of physics , just before the big bang , were different . We have evidence of speed , greater than light In the universe . These speed were attained immediately after big bang & lasted for a very short period . There after the laws were concreted , which the nature follows today.

To understand BIG Bang we have to look & understand , the laws prevailing, before the big bang.

Probably there was no third dimension, or gravity, before big bang , & the introduction of the third dimension or the gravity caused the big bang .

Time also came into being after the big bang. As time is understood as the " Distance travelled , divide by speed. The light, which, does not need any medium for travel, was it self not there. Hence There was nothing that travelled . NO travel , no distance covered , no speed hence no time

Aug 8 2013:
Had this discussion with a friends of mine - Several with PHD's in physics,chemistry, They all agreed that science is always evolving and the laws of physics will either be changed or added to match the new discoveries.

Aug 8 2013:
Let me go off topic for a minute. keep thinking and imagining but what i wanted to point out that science, math, etc are not a fixed set of knowledge - they grows and sometimes contracts. The method is through arguments backed up by experiments and facts and logic. There will s always be conservative vs the new idea and sometimes the conservatives and right and sometimes the new idea is right -

Let me give you an example: there was an experiment in climatology in the 1950's. It was accepted as fact and appears in every beginning text book on climatology. Someone has disputed the experiment and the results. He has run experiments and done the math. I have read his papers and I think he is right. It will shake up the science a little bit.

Aug 3 2013:
No one can imagine which is unimaginable. And if something is unimaginable it can be assumed for anything. The paradox does not exist in nature.If something is unimaginable, it does not mean that it seizes to exist. For example, before Hubble's discovery of Billions of galaxies, galaxies were unimaginable to exist for primitive man, but they were existing. Same logic can be applied to creation of this universe. When t=0, what was there?
I always feel when we say the whole matter of universe was concentrated in one single point, we suddenly feel an unimaginable situation. Let's assume, the matter was not there. The Energy (light) was existing and universe is the outcome of conversion of energy into matter. That was for once and it happened to give birth to matter. There was only one dimension at t=0, when energy converted into matter rest of dimensions came into existence.

Aug 3 2013:
When one is unimaginable , he has shut his mind .Closed mind is not for development.

There was no light before big bang , if the light was there , there would have been time .

The dimension yes , there was no third dimension, there could have been only length & breadth but no width. & these are just thought which can be contemplated to come to conclusion , otherwise dropped. One thing lead to other .The creation of third dimension created mass & this mass had caused the big bang. The big bang caused the light & thereby speed . As distance travelled, divide by speed, give's us time, so it happened when the light came into picture . Light does not need nay medium for travel. so when light was born , it travelled & distances were travelled hence time began .

Aug 3 2013:
"The creation of third dimension created mass......." as you said in above comment has a deeper appreciation of a force. The creation will come first or creator, its a historic debate. But you can say anything because no one was there, and fiction always find its existence when something is unimaginable. Einstein said about the nature of universe that there is an unimaginable bend in the universe. He was not closing his mind but opening it to further ideas.
I think, you may review the paradox in your creation model.
For instance
When one says the laws were different before big bang, it is submission to the existence of something before big bang, and one says again big bang was the starting point when time came into being. If before big bang there was something like mass, laws, dimensions, then we are saying they were existing before bang.This makes it a perfect paradox. Time began after bang and yet we say before bang there was something.
The probable situation you presented is something which can be termed as your imagination of an event. How it can be true that the Laws which enforced such creation now seize to exist? And why everything happened so quick?
You said creation of third dimension created mass, so Who created the third dimension? "When you say "there could have been only length & breadth but no width" i think breadth and width are the same thing you might mean depth.
I hope you ll expand the discussion while explaining the paradox in your model.

I feel it my way, there may be only energy(may be light or may be unknown) and energy converted into mass and special theory of relativity explains it well. And the laws which governed this never seize to exist.

Aug 5 2013:
I am no one to judge your comment. I just thought there is an invalidity about big bang. Big bang never says anything about before bang. The theory simply says what was there before we dont know. Any model that talks about before initial point is simply wandering in wildest imagination since we can not imagine beyond. Religions, however dare to do this. I am sorry for any of my words that may cause inconvenience for you. Lets talk again about creation with open hearts and minds.

Aug 8 2013:
That is written in the clouds , we do not have to discuss what is know or proven , then we are gossipers at the corner TEA SHOP or the riksha pullers . We are on TED & here to discuss & reach a new height, any way I would not like to carry on any further dialogue, with yourself thank

Jul 13 2013:
You are starting to realize how many assumptions are involved in the foundation of the big bang theory.

We should keep in mind the various categories of our knowledge:
what we know that has been confirmed by evidence,
what we know that is the result of calculations,
what we do not know but can reasonably conjecture,
and what we just assume.

When the big bang theory is analyzed in this way, I think you will agree that "understanding" is not yet possible, and it might never be possible. It is a great creation story, and discussing it is lots of fun.

Jul 13 2013:
I have not viewed the Stephen Hawking, but I will respond and check this out later.

I find the idea of the big bang so very interesting. It seems to be, for some reason maybe I'm not quite there yet on the "why", but seems that physicists attempt to tie their laws of physics (we must consider this is physical, strictly, law that we are trying to relate to...) something as magnificent as the supposed beginning of our universe.

Now, are you privy to the idea of the singularity, such that this point of whatever you call it prior to the bang (can't be spacetime, right?), that this contained all of the universe, compacted: all that was and all that is to come? Hence our universal connection/consciousness, etc.

The laws of physics as you state having existed before the big bang in my own opinion is an overstatement of the knowledge that we have as humans.

A topic also you may find interesting is the presentation by some physicist that exerts "light" present at the time of the big bang, limited by the forces of time and the speed of light, this light is just now reaching our abilities to observe. (Red-light spectrum, Einstein perhaps, not exactly sure but very neat).

How many dimensions do you think there are? Are you limiting your awareness to 4? I've thought of this as well....the first dimension being the singularity of the big bang. However, what about dimension 5? Are the spiritual planes part of our dimensional consideration? Do you have an idea of what the fifth dimension may be? Think about it....

I'll watch this later so my response willrelate a little better, but I'd be interested to hear your opinions.